Oneness of God

jessedance · Sep 12, 2003

Bekah;
A question arises here. does the fact that jesus shall be called immanuel mean he is immanuel or merely that he shall be called immanuel? I say the latter you say the former. The scripture in math. is a quote from the 7th chapter of isaiah where God says a virgin shall concieve a child and he shall be called immanuel. To me this just means thats his name for thats all it says. You read into it that he is immanuel. One would think it says " a virgin shall concieve a child and he is immanuel.", from what you say. but it doesnt say what you say it means. it merely says " he shall be called immanuel" and thats all it means to me.

jessedance · Sep 12, 2003

Bekah;
gotta go to church tonight. we have regular church services on fri. nite (not wed. or thurs.) Starts at 7:45 pm. gotta leave in about 10 min.
I would just like to add that I am born again, and spirit filled. I know Jesus personally. I have several gifts of the spirit that i operate regularly.. gift of tongues, prophecy, and diversity of tongues. God has blessed me and I have a healthy relationship with the almighty. I worship God with all my strength in church and feel his agape love to tremendous levels. I get drunk in the spirit durring worship time sometimes, i laugh in the spirit. I dance in the spirit. I have wonderfull experiences in the spirit realm.
This is no proof that i am right, but what I'm saying is that God is pleased with where I am. IN my opinion
One day we will agape each other as we will all the other saints. I hope I haven't hurt your feelings. You

Bekah Ferguson · Sep 12, 2003

Jesse - Isaiah says that "he shall be called Immanuel". But in Matthew One it further says, 'he shall be called Immanuel, which being interpreted is God with us". Your reasoning is bizarre. Isaiah also said that Jesus would be called "the mighty God". Now you say, "Ya, it says his name will be called blah blah, not that He IS blah blah." What kind of logic is that? That's like saying, "Well, my name is Rebekah, but I'm not Rebekah".

Bekah Ferguson · Sep 12, 2003

Jesse - you have not hurt my feelings. I hope that I have not hurt yours! I believe you when you say how much you love God and enjoy the Prescence and infilling of His Spirit - me too! This doesn't mean that you are right though. I believe that God is in your life and pleased that you are serving Him and seeking Him! No doubt about that. I just don't know why you're so unwilling to believe that Jesus is God when that's what the Bible clearly teaches. Imagine what your relationship would be like if you knew that Jesus is your God! You think your relationship with God is great now - but just you wait! It'll be absolutely incredible once you receive the Revelation that Jesus IS God!

Bekah Ferguson · Sep 12, 2003

[font=Helvetica, sans-serif]Did Jesus exist prior to his birth in Bethlehem?[/font]

[font=Helvetica, sans-serif]John 1:15  John bare witness of him [Jesus], and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
[/font]

[font=Helvetica, sans-serif]This is an interesting statement that John made. Why? Because John the Baptist was born several months before Jesus! So, why would John say He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me?[/font]

[font=Helvetica, sans-serif]John 8:58 - Verily, verily, I [Jesus] say unto you, before Abraham was, I am.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, sans-serif]In this incredible statement, Jesus himself says that he existed before Abraham! Not only did Jesus exist before John (even though he was born after John) but Jesus also existed before Abraham who lived thousands of years prior to Jesus' birth in Bethlehem![/font]

[font=Helvetica, sans-serif]John 1:1 & 14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, sans-serif]Here we see that not only did Jesus exist before John the Baptist and before the ancient Abraham, but he also existed in the beginning![/font]

[font=Helvetica, sans-serif]Philippians 2:5-11  Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under earth: And that every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, sans-serif]Jesus (who was in the form of God) humbled himself and became a man he took on the nature of man and was born of the virgin Mary. The Lord Jesus was both man and God.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, sans-serif]Matthew 1:23  Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, sans-serif]Jesus has existed since the very beginning before the 'first' Adam. Jesus is God, who became a man two thousand years ago. (Matthew 1:23)
[/font]

Der Alte · Sep 13, 2003

jessedance said:
Alter: "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. "Mal 3:6 (KJV).
Since God doesn't change then he does not change from a god to a man. and since God doesnt change, he doesnt say that he is not a man and then latter change his mind and decide he is a man.

[size=+1]And the NT does NOT say that God changes from God into a man. What John 1:14 says is God BECAME man. He did NOT change into, but while remaining God became man. What God said was limited in scope, “I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.” His nature changes not and because of that He did not destroy the descendants of Jacob.[/size]

jessedance said:
Thomas saying "my lord and my God" to Jesus probably means that Thomas saw God in Jesus. Jesus said "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father." "The Father that is in me he doeth the works". Or possibly it is a primitive error and was orginially an exclamation, or possibly trinitarians inserted that in the bible.

[size=+1]I see one “probably” and two “possiblies” in that response. But what I do not see is any historical or linguistic evidence. You evidently did not even read what I said, just knee jerk blew it off. I am not too interested in what you “think” this verse “probably, possibly” might mean. I happen to read both Biblical languages and if you are going to disprove what I say then I want REAL evidence, not suppositions and assumptions, to cove up the fact a correct exegesis of the Word disproves your doctrine.

If you want the truth then I suggest you buy a copy of the Greek scriptures and a Greek grammar and read for yourself. There is uniform agreement in the manuscripts and NO relevant deviations.

Thomas was standing less than an arm’s length from Jesus. The form in the Greek is direct address and literally reads, “Thomas said to HIM [Jesus] “the Lord of me and the God of me.” Therefore it was not a reference that Thomas saw God in Jesus. And it would take much more than adding a few marks to change it into exclamation, beside which a devout Jew would never say God in exclamation.[/size]

jessdance said:

"the only begotten God" is not supported by the internal evidence and I think only one translation translates it that way..

Click to expand...

[size=+1]Still not reading what is posted. I said ALL the oldest and most reliable manuscripts (plural NOT one) have “only begotten God” And what you think is just what your church leaders have told you and nothing more. What “internal evidence’ are you talking about?[/size]

jessdance said:

And actually, the external evedince supports "the only begotten Son" because Christian Fathers writting in the 2nd and 3rd centurys (predating any manuscripts we currently have) said "only begotten son".

Click to expand...

[size=+1]What external evidence, which early church fathers, and which of their writings? This is a copout and the logical fallacy of “appeal to authority” Some vague, “external evidence,” that you can’t identify, of unnamed “Christian Fathers,” which you have never read. Here are two quotes from the Early Church Fathers, with names, dates, and a link to the writings. As I said the manuscript evidence supports “only begotten God.” The first ECF, Ignatius, was a disciple of John, who wrote the gospel that bears his name, Revelation, and the three epistles.[/size]

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians [30-107 AD]

Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth; and also one preaching, and one faith, and one baptism; and one Church which the holy apostles established from one end of the earth to the other by the blood of Christ, and by their own sweat and toil; it behoves you also, therefore, as "a peculiar people, and a holy nation," to perform all things with harmony in Christ.

If any one says there is one God, and also confesses Christ Jesus, but thinks the Lord to be a mere man, and not the only-begotten God, and Wisdom, and the Word of God, and deems Him to consist merely of a soul and body, such an one is a serpent, that preaches deceit and error for the destruction of men.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-20.htm#P1941_328407

Dialogue of Justin Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew [110-165 AD]

The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter, will bear evidence to me, when He speaks by Solomon the following: `If I shall declare to you what happens daily, I shall call to mind events from everlasting, and review them. The Lord made me the beginning of His ways for His works.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4043_787325

jessedance said:

Most scholars suspect a primitive error.the word son and the word god in greek sound very much alike, and you only have to add a slightmark to change the greek word son into theon or god. there are web sites with much more detailed information on this subject. If you want i can find one for you.

Click to expand...

”The word son and the word god in greek sound very much alike, and you only have to add a slightmark to change the greek word son into theon or god.” [size=+1]I am sorry but this is absolute garbage. The Greek word for God is qeoV and is pronounced “Theh-ohss” The Greek word for son is uioV and is pronounced “wee-ohss” in order to change uioV into qeoV you would have to replace two letters that look nothing alike. And on top of this there is absolutely NO evidence or proof that any manuscripts were changed. This is just scraping the bottom of the barrel for any old excuse to avoid acknowledging what the NT actually says.

Which “most scholars”, can you name even one? What books, when were they written? Another fabricated, out of nothing excuse. People who WANT to believe what you do, accept this kind of stuff without raising an eyebrow or questioning.[/size]

jessedance said:

"the word was god" is not a good translation of the greek even though it is very literal. The reason being is that in greek a definite article is much more important than in english. to convey the idea of "the word being god" you would have to say in greek literally " the word was the god" but the greek manuscritps say literally "the word was god". since god does not have the definite article before it it means that the word is an aspect of God. there is more to this argument than i am familiar with. perhaps there is also a web site with much more detailed info.

Click to expand...

[size=+1]You are going to lecture me on the Greek and you don’t even know what you are talking about? I have studied Biblical Greek, and everything you said is nonsense. There are three adjectives, in Biblical Greek, based on the noun, QeoV/Theos to express aspects or qualities of God. There is NO evidence from any historical source that ANY noun was ever used in place of an adjective to express quality or aspects. If “Theos” is used as an adjective in John 1:1, that is the only place in the Bible or any other known koine Greek manuscript. That is an excuse made up by “Oneness” writers to try to get around the clear meaning of John 1:1, which is also supported by Jewish writings before the Christian era, which I posted and you ignored.

This argument falls completely apart in John 1:6 where the word God does not have the definite article.[/size]

John 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

jessedance said:

"the word became flesh" just means that gods plan or word took on its greatest fullfillment with the birth of Jesus. It is not to be taken literally.. God's words are not God anymore than my words are me. There is not someone walking around in heaven named word, and never has been.

Click to expand...

[size=+1]The usual razzle-dazzle, hocus pocus, what John wrote literally cannot mean what it says so the “Oneness/Unitarian bunch need to invent other meanings. Where is the word “plan” anywhere in the Bible associated with Jesus? Where is any scripture that supports, “gods plan or word took on its greatest fullfillment with the birth of Jesus?” And just because it does not agree with your unbiblical teachings you cannot change the plain meaning. Go back and read what “The Word was God” actually, literally meant to the Jews. And John was a Jew.

Long before the Christian era, during the Babylonian captivity, the Jews translated the Hebrew OT into Aramaic, the everyday language, and everywhere God appeared to have anthropomorphic qualities the word YHWH was translated in the Targums, “memra,” the Aramaic word for “Word.” So in the Targums God was literally “The Word” and “The Word” was literally God. And as I said when John wrote that he was not saying anything new to the Jews. And in Jhn 1:14, “The Word” that was God “became”, NOT changed into, flesh. God was still God but became flesh.[/size]

Bekah Ferguson · Sep 13, 2003

Der Alter - I just read your post in response to JesseDance and I must tell you - I really admire your knowledge of the greek and hebrew language and the original greek and hebrew text of the Bible. Your response to JesseDance was EXCELLENT!

Only one thing - please don't group Oneness with Unitarian - we have entirely different beliefs. Oneness believes that Jesus is God - just as you do. The Unitarians do not believe that Jesus is God. Our beliefs are nowhere near the same!

Again - excellent post!

God bless you.

GJG · Sep 13, 2003

Bekah Ferguson said:
Der Alter - I just read your post in response to JesseDance and I must tell you - I really admire your knowledge of the greek and hebrew language and the original greek and hebrew text of the Bible. Your response to JesseDance was EXCELLENT!

Only one thing - please don't group Oneness with Unitarian - we have entirely different beliefs. Oneness believes that Jesus is God - just as you do. The Unitarians do not believe that Jesus is God. Our beliefs are nowhere near the same!

Again - excellent post!

God bless you.

Good to see you still going as strong as ever Beks!

That UPC gathering sounds awesome! Just a bit too far for me though.

I also agree that Derz last post was very well put together.

Gimme some details on yurself: where, when, who ,why......those kinda things, you in the ministry at all?

GJG · Sep 13, 2003

I say: I am a believer in the Bible.

The Bible says: God is omnipotent and has EVERTHING under control.

I also say: Man has messed around with the Bible.

?????????

Bekah Ferguson · Sep 13, 2003

~Deleted~

Bekah Ferguson · Sep 13, 2003

GJG - Good point you just made about man messing with God's Word. If we truly believe in the Word, then we truly believe that the Word has not been destroyed by men. Amen to that!

Bekah Ferguson · Sep 13, 2003

Where, when, and why, about myself?

Well, I live in Ontario, Canada. I was born into a Christian family and was raised in a Trinitarian church. Three years ago, through God's Word, I came to the revelation of the Oneness of God! Shortly after, I was baptised in Jesus' Name and came up out of the waters healed from an eight year struggle with heavy depression. I have been free for three years now! Praise God!

I am still attending a Trinitarian Pentecostal church and it's okay. They are my brothers and sisters, even though we have differing beliefs on the Godhead - we still love and serve the same God!

Bekah Ferguson · Sep 13, 2003

~Deleted~

Der Alte · Sep 13, 2003

jessedance said:
Bekah;
A question arises here. does the fact that jesus shall be called immanuel mean he is immanuel or merely that he shall be called immanuel? I say the latter you say the former. The scripture in math. is a quote from the 7th chapter of isaiah where God says a virgin shall concieve a child and he shall be called immanuel. To me this just means thats his name for thats all it says. You read into it that he is immanuel. One would think it says " a virgin shall concieve a child and he is immanuel.", from what you say. but it doesnt say what you say it means. it merely says " he shall be called immanuel" and thats all it means to me.

[size=+1]The only questions which arise are for those who do not know anything about the ancient Jews and what "name" meant to them. It is irelevant how modern society understands or uses names. For example, my name is that of a friend of my father's at the time I was born. He did not know or have any idea what the name means. My wife is oriental and her father chose her name for its meaning, "Beautiful Pearl, in Chinese "San euie'." My wife has two sisters each of their names also have "Pearl" in them. In ancient Israel names were not just chosen because they sounded good but their meaning.[/size]

International Standard Bile Encyclopedia-Name

na¯m (שמ she¯m; onoma, o´noma; Latin nomen (2 Esd 4:1); verbs , onomazo; Latin nomino (2 Esd 5:26)): A “name” is that by which a person, place or thing is marked and known. In Scripture, names were generally descriptive of the person, of his position, of some circumstance affecting him, hope entertained concerning him, etc., so that “the name” often came to stand for the person. In Act_1:15; Rev_3:4, o noma o’noma stands for “persons”; compare Num_26:53, Num_26:55.

Der Alte · Sep 13, 2003

Bekah Ferguson said:
[font=Helv,Arial]
IS JESUS GOD?!

There is definite distinction between God the Father and Jesus the Son. It was not a separation meaning that 'they' were two separate Beings, but rather the man Jesus Christ (the "Son" of God) was endwelled by the Spirit of God and was in fact, God in the flesh. God humbled Himself and became a man, but after Calvary, He was once again glorified. That's the distinction - God became a man - Jesus Christ had a dual nature because he was both Divine and human at the same time.

If God the Father will be sitting on the Throne and Jesus will be standing beside Him, then where is the Holy Spirit? Why isn't He mentioned?

If God the Father is truly an invisible Spirit as the Bible says (Colossians 1:15), then how could an invisible Spirit sit on a throne? And if Jesus is NOT God, then why does the Bible say the following:

Hebrews 1:3 said that Jesus is "the express image of God's person" and Colossians 1:15 says that "Jesus is . . . the image of the invisible God" and 2 Corinthians 4:4b says that "Christ . . . is the image of God". So, what can we conclude from all of this?

There will be One sitting on the Throne in Heaven: Jesus Christ WHO IS GOD! Still uncertain? Well, what if I showed you a passage of Scripture that actually says that it is Jesus who will be sitting on the Throne? Check out the following two Scripture passages:

There is One God and He is our Lord Jesus! The last book of the Bible, Revelation brings all the Scripture together.

[/font]

[size=+1]What did Jesus mean in Rev 3:21? What does "with' mean?

Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down WITH my Father in HIS throne.[/size]

GJG · Sep 13, 2003

Bekah Ferguson said:
GJG - if you wanna hear me rap, listen to "Keepin' It Real" on the Music page of my band website. www.soulcleansed.com

If you do check out the site - please sign our guestbook!

Thx for the back-ground info, awesome testimony, very similar to my own...it's just that my country is slightly smaller!

And I also drum, and rap, write lyrics, and believe in oneness, and breath, and type........wow, lots of similarities! LOL. I play in the church band, but I'm not a trained drummer just yet, later on maybe.

Well, I'm off to check out yur link!

I'll sign in aswell.

GJG · Sep 13, 2003

WHOA!

I saw yur site Beks! Totally awesome!

A friend and I had a similar vision a few years ago (few=an unmentioned number with the sole purpose of hiding ones true age...lol) of doing the same thing you guys are.

GJG · Sep 13, 2003

Hey Bekmeister,

Wen I signed in, a message came up saying "You did not fill in the state or province...". Does that mean my sign in to the guest book didn't go thru?

GJG · Sep 13, 2003

If I was living somewhere closer (like Timbukthree) I would consider it a real privilage to have a jam session with yall! Keep it going strong Beks!

Glory to God!

Der Alte · Sep 13, 2003

jessedance said:
Bekah: well there is much evedince that they did tamper with matth. 28:19. If interested go to this site

I have about 20 or so different bibles I use. I rely mostly on the Rotherham version which is a vry literal translation. for beauty of language none surpase the kjv in my estimation. There are many good translations but none of them are totally reliable in every instance. sometimes even a poor translation, such as Darbys will be right when the better translations, such as niv or rotherham or asv are wrong.

[size=+1]I visited the site. Let me preface my remarks with this, just because something is posted on some website or written in a book, does NOT make it true. I saw no evidence whatosever of scholarship. All I saw were unsupported assertions that this or that was false, changed, etc. Just because some anti-Trinitarian says this or that was changed means diddly. Here is how Bible scholarship works.

If you do not read Greek how do you know which translation(s) are correct and which ones are not correct? What is your standard for deciding which of the versions is true to the original Greek?

Manuscripts are examined by experts and the material is dated using various scientific tests. The writing material, ink is also examined. Its composition can help date it. The writing style is compared to the styles of different periods. And all these factors help establish a date. Then the older manuscripts (mss.) are compared to the newer mss., any differences are usually decided in the favor of the older mss. Another source of dating are the writings of the early church. It has been stated that approximately 90% of the NT can be recreated from the quotes in the ECF. I saw nothing like this at your pet website.

When did the "Catholic church" supposedly mess with the gospel according to Matthew or any other book of the Bible? News flash, what we know as the Catholic church did not exist until about 1100 AD. So they could not have changed anything in the early centuries. Here are some quotes of Matt. 28:19, from the early church. The dates are given, ALL before the Nicaean council. The ECF can be verified at this link.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/

All the church fathers who mention Baptism unanimously agree, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. None of the church fathers write of any other Baptismal formula.[/size]

70 AD The Didache "After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days" (Didache 7:1).

110-165 AD Martyr "As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, 'Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all... And for this we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe." (Justin Martyr, "First Apology," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pg. 183)

110-165AD Justin Martyr "Those who are convinced that what we teach is true and who desire to live accordingly are instructed to fast and to pray to God for the remission of all their past sins. We also pray and fast with them. Then we bring them to a place where there is water, and they are regenerated in the same manner in which we ourselves were regenerated. They then receive the washing with water in the name of God (the Father and Lord of the universe) and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ said, 'Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven"' [John 3:5]. (Justin First Apology chant 61)

150-200 AD CLEMENT "For thus hath the true prophet testified to us with an oath: 'Verily I say to you, That unless a man is born again of water, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' Therefore make haste; for there is in these waters a certain power of mercy which was borne upon them at the beginning, and acknowledges those who are baptized under the name of the threefold sacrament, and rescues them from future punishments, presenting as a gift to God the souls that are consecrated by baptism. Betake yourselves therefore to these waters, for they alone can quench the violence of the future fire; and he who delays to approach to them, it is evident that the idol of unbelief remains in him, and by it he is prevented from hastening to the waters which confer salvation." (Clement, "Recognitions of Clement," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 8, pg. 155)

170 AD Tatian the Syrian "Then said Jesus unto them, I have been given all authority in heaven and earth; and as my Father has sent me, so I also send you. Go now into all the world, and preach my gospel in all the creation; and teach all the peoples, and baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and teach them to keep all whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you all the days, unto the end of the world" (The Diatesseron 55).

200-258 AD CYPRIAN "Wherefore baptism cannot be common to us and to heretics, to whom neither God the Father, nor Christ the Son, nor the Holy Ghost, nor the faith, nor the Church itself, is common. And therefore it behooves those to be baptized who come from heresy to the Church, that so they who are prepared, in the lawful, and true, and only baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God, may be born of both sacraments, because it is written, 'Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'" (Cyprian, "The Epistles of Cyprian," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, pg. 384)

211 AD Tertullian "After His resurrection He promises in a pledge to His disciples that He will send them the promise of His Father; and lastly, He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, NOT into a unipersonal God. And indeed it is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into the Three Persons, at each several mention of Their names" (Against Praxeas 26).

215 AD Hippolytus "When the one being baptized goes down into the water, the one baptizing him shall put his hand on him and speak thus: `Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty?' And he that is being baptized shall say: `I believe.' Then, having his hand imposed upon the head of the one to be baptized, he shall baptize him once. Then he shall say: `Do you believe in Christ Jesus . . . ?' And when he says: `I believe,' he is baptized again. Again shall he say: `Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh?' The one being baptized then says: `I believe.' And so he is baptized a third time" (The Apostolic Tradition 21).

248 AD Origen "Why, when the Lord himself told his disciples that they should baptize all peoples in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, does this apostle employ the name of Christ alone in baptism, saying, `We who have been baptized into Christ'; for indeed, legitimate baptism is had only in the name of the Trinity" (Commentary on Romans 5:8).

Oneness of God

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Similar threads